Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 00:47:00 +0100 From: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl> To: Akinori MUSHA aka knu <knu@idaemons.org> Cc: chuckr@picnic.mat.net, andrews@technologist.com, shige@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches) Message-ID: <20000123004700.E18600@daemon.ninth-circle.org> In-Reply-To: <86r9f9lq6w.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org>; from knu@idaemons.org on Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 07:03:19AM %2B0900 References: <20000122123109.E59732@shadow.blackdawn.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001221238240.59825-100000@picnic.mat.net> <86r9f9lq6w.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-On [20000123 00:01], Akinori MUSHA aka knu (knu@idaemons.org) wrote: >Yes, they are pretty big enough to see the difference between two... > > .tar.bz2 .tar.gz >lynx2.8.2rel1 1.4MB 1.8MB >WindowMaeker 0.61.1 1.6MB 1.9MB >gimp-1.1.13 6.2MB 8.0MB >kdebase-1.1.2 7.0MB 8.9MB >linux-2.2.14 12.3MB 15.2MB > >It's crystal clear bzip2 wins in these cases. and far enough. Then look at the memory overhead caused by bzipping versus gzipping and you'll loose. Anyways, we have had this discussion a few times in the past. Lets consult the archives and see what the reason was why we didn't do it back then. I am in favor with Chuck here. Its fine as it is, as a port. -- Jeroen Ruigrok vd W/Asmodai asmodai@[wxs.nl|bart.nl|freebsd.org] Documentation nutter/B-rated Coder BSD: Technical excellence at its best The BSD Programmer's Documentation Project <http://home.wxs.nl/~asmodai>; Ain't gonna spend the rest of my Life, quietly fading away... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000123004700.E18600>